Should hunters switch to 'green' bullets?

Here's the problem I have with this (emphasis mine):

The department also recommended lead-free bullets as the simplest solution to possible contamination.

So, what they're saying is, "We can't find a problem, but lead is supposed to be bad, right? So...um.. we'd better ban it."
 
Here's the problem I have with this (emphasis mine):



So, what they're saying is, "We can't find a problem, but lead is supposed to be bad, right? So...um.. we'd better ban it."

That mindset is definitely an issue.

OTOH, land contamination at ranges is a common problem.

I will have no issue switching to "green bullets" as soon as an alternative with equal performance and equal pricing comes along.
 
Show me the proof

i would like concrete proof that lead causes all kinds of issues. DDT causes issues, documented and proven. wheres the proof for lead?
 
That mindset is definitely an issue.

OTOH, land contamination at ranges is a common problem.

I will have no issue switching to "green bullets" as soon as an alternative with equal performance and equal pricing comes along.

How so? And please don't say that they detected lead in the berm. What are the symptoms of the "problem" other than the mere fact that it is detected?
 
Should hunters switch to 'green' bullets?

It was mandated years ago for hunting waterfowl.

You must use "non-toxic" (either ineffective steel, or VERY EXPENSIVE alternatives) shot when hunting waterfowl.
 
That mindset is definitely an issue.

OTOH, land contamination at ranges is a common problem.


There was a similar switch from lead sinkers to tin or steel sinkers used for fishing in VT a few years back. Wildlife biologists were claiming that waterfowl (especially loons) were ingesting the sinkers and poisoning themselves.


I'm be all for the ammo switch as long as the new stuff is comparatively priced. I just can't figure out what else they would make them out of that would have similar characteristics to a lead projectile.
 
Last edited:
Saying that is, in my mind, the equivalent of saying something like:

"Restrooms smelling like urine and feces is a common problem."

Well, of course. That's what a bathroom is used for.

That's the purpose of a range. To collect lead projectiles.

+1
 
Should hunters switch to 'green' bullets?

It was mandated years ago for hunting waterfowl.

You must use "non-toxic" (either ineffective steel, or VERY EXPENSIVE alternatives) shot when hunting waterfowl.

Indeed. After the success of pushing this to waterfowl, ts coming one way or another to the rest of all game.

Here's the problem I have with this (emphasis mine):

So, what they're saying is, "We can't find a problem, but lead is supposed to be bad, right? So...um.. we'd better ban it."

Much like that ammo accountability company, "We dont even know how we would make this work, but the ammo manufacturers have smart scientists who an figure it out. Lets make this a law and make me millions."
 
Probably just looking for an excuse to start putting new serial numbered ammo out there. Harder metal will probably make the number more recoverable
 
Indeed. After the success of pushing this to waterfowl, ts coming one way or another to the rest of all game.

Much like that ammo accountability company, "We dont even know how we would make this work, but the ammo manufacturers have smart scientists who an figure it out. Lets make this a law and make me millions."

What sucks is the myth of lead contaminating game meat has already been debunked by a few different studies around the country, I think most recently in Minnesota with venison. They really don't care about lead poisoning, it's just another way to restrict guns and will only lead to further restrictions in the future.
 
What sucks is the myth of lead contaminating game meat has already been debunked by a few different studies around the country, I think most recently in Minnesota with venison. They really don't care about lead poisoning, it's just another way to restrict guns and will only lead to further restrictions in the future.

Best of both worlds if they got flavor shot to market!
 
How so? And please don't say that they detected lead in the berm. What are the symptoms of the "problem" other than the mere fact that it is detected?

There is a pretty good summary of the effects of lead contamination in an environment here. Page 2 is the main discussion of the ways in which lead can affect an environment.

Over time a large concentration of lead builds up in berms. It oxidizes and enters the atmosphere and the groundwater. Lead is a known toxin, and it is plentiful in the soil at gun ranges.

I am not making an argument that this is such a pressing issue that we need to change. I am just recognizing the factors that, over time, have a decent chance to add up to an issue in the immediate environment at and around shooting ranges.
 
There was a similar switch from lead sinkers to tin or steel sinkers used for fishing in VT a few years back. Wildlife biologists were claiming that waterfowl (especially loons) were ingesting the sinkers and poisoning themselves.


I'm be all for the ammo switch as long as the new stuff is comparatively priced. I just can't figure out what else they would make them out of that would have similar characteristics to a lead projectile.

Ballistically depleted uranium would be a good substitute. [smile]
 
OTOH, land contamination at ranges is a common problem.

The EPA doesn't even require RCRA permitting for shooting clubs because the lead in the berm is a known quantity and in a safe state. So long as you keep the pH in check, the situation is not a problem.
 
The EPA doesn't even require RCRA permitting for shooting clubs because the lead in the berm is a known quantity and in a safe state. So long as you keep the pH in check, the situation is not a problem.

Again, I am not claiming/agreeing/making any indication that this is some sort of epidemic.

Lead is a toxic substance. This is not a secret. Nobody here is going kookoo for coco-puffs that this is a major problem. What's the problem with recognizing that putting a lot of a toxic substance into a small area has a good chance at creating a potentially toxic situation?

If there were another design that used materials that were non-toxic, had the same performance characteristics as lead based projectiles and cost the same, what would be the problem with using that as a more environmentally friendly alternative?
 
Again, I am not claiming/agreeing/making any indication that this is some sort of epidemic.

Lead is a toxic substance. This is not a secret. Nobody here is going kookoo for coco-puffs that this is a major problem. What's the problem with recognizing that putting a lot of a toxic substance into a small area has a good chance at creating a potentially toxic situation?

If there were another design that used materials that were non-toxic, had the same performance characteristics as lead based projectiles and cost the same, what would be the problem with using that as a more environmentally friendly alternative?

It's not the quantity. It is the size of the granules. I can have a ton of lead in three pieces, and not have an issue. I can have a pound of lead, and it is in dust form and the only way to get it is out of the soil is through a chemical extraction or with a lead phyllic plant that will absorb the lead in it's uptake of nutrients from the soil. In that dust form, the lead can travel through the soil and into the water table. It can also go airborne. That pound of lead can be much more dangerous than the three 1/3 ton pieces. Remember, lead is a naturally occurring substance like asbestos, and a thousand other toxic substances. The problem is usually not the presence of the substance, but the form/concentration it has been put into.
 
If there were another design that used materials that were non-toxic, had the same performance characteristics as lead based projectiles and cost the same, what would be the problem with using that as a more environmentally friendly alternative?

If there were such a thing, it would already be on the market. Based on what I have seen with waterfowl shot, you either get

1. much poorer performance (steel)
2. slightly poorer performance with MUCH higher cost
 
yes

attachment.php

[rofl]
 
Back
Top Bottom